Also silent now while his editor does the talking is Age journalist Mark Forbes.

A fortnight ago he provided an important curtain raiser to the release, today, of the parliamentary report on Australia's handling of intelligence on Iraq. Forbes' story led the paper.

Government “warned” on intelligenceMark Forbes, Foreign Affairs correspondent, Canberra.Intelligence agencies told the Federal Government in the weeks before the Iraq war that some of the Bush Administration’s claims justifying an invasion were exaggerated, according to one of Australia’s most senior intelligence officials.- The Age, 14 February 2004- Take a look »

For months claims have been seeping out of the intelligence world that governments in Washington and London ramped the advice they were given about Saddam's weapons before the war.

Mark Forbes wasn't onto a new story here. What he'd found was a new source levelling this same charge directly at John Howard.

The government was told before the war that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction did not pose an immediate threat. Iraq’s chemical and biological warfare capabilities were largely latent.- The Age, 14 February 2004- Take a look »

The importance of Forbes' story rested on the authority of an unnamed source very sceptical of Australia's decision to go to war. He was described as -

...one of Australia’s most senior intelligence officials- The Age, 14 February 2004- Take a look »

who knew what the government had been told about Saddam's weapons because he

...was intimately involved in preparing the assessments.- The Age, 14 February 2004- Take a look »

Fudging is OK to protect the identity of a source. Lying is not. The paper lied when it claimed Forbes got his story -

...in a private briefing attended by The Age- The Age, 14 February 2004- Take a look »

As is now widely known, Mark Forbes encountered this concerned intelligence official last September when the man gave a seminar to Forbes and forty other masters students at the ANU.

The seminar was conducted under what's known as the Chatham House rule and the ethical ruckus that has all but submerged Forbes' story centres on the meaning of this rule devised in 1927 for meetings at the headquarters of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, in London. What's the point of the rule?

It allows people to speak as individual, and to express views that may not be those of their organisations, and therefore it encourages free discussion.- Royal Institute of International Affairs web site- Take a look »

It doesn't work by insisting what's said in the meeting stays in the meeting. Participants in Chatham House meetings -

...are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker… may be revealed.- Royal Institute of International Affairs web site- Take a look »

A very angry Professor Ross Babbage, head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the ANU wrote to the Age, the Australian and the Canberra Times claiming material from a Chatham House meeting could never appear in a newspaper because the rule only -

permits students to use the information as background…- Babbage letter to The Age

But the London guardians of the rule don't recognise such a restriction. What's crucial is protecting the identity of the speaker.

As this story unravelled, Forbes was accused of effectively outing his source by the way he described this senior official.

But three days after publication of the article, Forbes source was still not identified and Peter Varghese, head of the nation's peak intelligence assessment body the ONA, told a Senate committee that Forbes' description was vague and that efforts were still continuing to track the person down.

Varghese: ...the article itself does not identify either an individual or an organisation that this alleged individual allegedly works for.Senator RAY: It goes to great lengths not to identify, doesn’t it? It is very neutral. We have all pored over it, but you cannot really get a hint at all as to even which department it might be, let alone which agency.Varghese: That is right- Varghese before Estimates, 16 February- Watch video »

Whether or not continuing investigations would have sprung Forbes' source, we'll never know. Because the very senior official in question outed himself.

Tony Jones: In a growing atmosphere of suspicion about intelligence leaks in Canberra, one previously unnamed intelligence source has revealed himself. In an extraordinary admission, the head of the Defence Intelligence Organisation, Frank Lewincamp, told a Senate hearing that he was a source of a newspaper article on weapons of mass destructrion.Frank Lewincamp: I believe that I am, at least in part, the official to whom Mark Forbes refers in his article in the Age on 14 February.- ABC Lateline, 18 February 2004- Watch video »

At this point the media lost the plot. Lewincamp denied a few of the specific points attributed anonymously to him in the article and added -

Frank Lewincamp: Overall, the article characterises these issues in ways in which I do not. There are judgements in there with which I disagree and views that I do not hold…- ABC Lateline, 18 February 2004- Watch video »

Lewincamp's denial and the ethical controversy clouded what remained a good and important story. More attention should have been paid by the media to what Lewincamp had not denied.Lewincamp left standing this grim forecast by his Defense Intelligence Organisation:

Mr Howard was warned of a ‘gloomy’ outlook for postwar Iraq…and was told the coalition would need to remain involved for many years. ‘The prospect for a self-sustaining Iraqi government and peacekeeping force were nil.’- The Age, 14 February 2004- Take a look »

Nor did Lewincamp backtrack publicly from this verdict:

Asked if the magnitude of the Iraqi threat justified its invasion, the official said: ‘No.’- The Age, 14 February 2004- Take a look »

Whether the Chatham House rule is the right rule for ANU seminars is a matter for them, but the media has to be on the side of getting stories out, not keeping them behind closed doors.

The ethical issues here shouldn't have distracted the media from what remained an significant story.

Mark Forbes clearly pushed the Chatham House rule to the limit, but he didn't break it.